The prophets were able to predict Christ's life in amazing detail hundreds of years before He was born. They predicted that He would be born in Bethlehem to a virgin mother, that the the three magi would come to visit Him, that Herod would try to kill Him so His family would flee to Egypt, that He would grow up in Nazareth, that John the Baptist would prepare the way for Him, which towns would accept or reject Him during His travels, most of the miracles He would perform, which gate He would use to enter Jerusalem, most of the details about His trial, that He would be pierced with a lance while on the cross, that none of His bones would be broken, and that He would be resurrected after three days. Now, since Jesus knew the scriptures and knew the prophesies very well, one might say that He chose to do all these things just to fulfill the prophesies; however, many of these things were beyond His control. He could not, for example, determine where He was born or many of the details about His early life, nor was it up to Him how the Romans killed Him or whether or not He would be pierced with a lance. Thus, how could the prophets writing hundreds of years before these events know so much about Him unless the knowledge came from God? One or two lucky guesses could be explained as coincidence, but this much detail?

The many miracles that take place today also prove it. For example, when Christ instituted the Eucharist, He transubstantiated the bread and wine into His body and blood; in fact, there have been many miracles where, during Mass, the bread and wine literally turned into human tissue! And scientific investigation proved it to be the exact same DNA as that on the Shroud of Turin! Other miracles involve miraculous healings. I know a woman who was on her deathbed, dying of cancer, when prayer alone healed her and she is alive to this day. Her doctor (an atheist) couldn't explain it, and he ended up converting after he realized that God does in fact exist. How else can these miracles be possible?

I could probably type forever about this, but I have to go to work and this should be enough for now. I look forward to reading your response!

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

When I use italics, it is for emphasis, nothing close to an "in your face" style.

alextemplet wrote:They predicted that He would be born in Bethlehem to a virgin mother

Virgin mother is a mistranslation of "young girl." More importantly, this isn't a prophecy of the Messiah. This is predicting a completely different birth. Could you please cite the verses that led you to believe this? Bethlehem is a city. The prophecy is to be part of the family of "Bethlehem."

alextemplet wrote:that the the three magi would come to visit Him

Luke mentions shepherds instead.

alextemplet wrote:that Herod would try to kill Him

Luke leaves this out as well. While we have many documents telling of the horrible things that Herod did, nothing mentions the killing of the first-borns.

alextemplet wrote:so His family would flee to Egypt

There is nothing from Luke on this either.

alextemplet wrote:which towns would accept or reject Him during His travels

That is like me saying I predict that some people will cheer for the Superbowl champions and others will boo.

alextemplet wrote:and that He would be resurrected after three days.

Friday evening to Sunday morning is what it predicts and that's 2 days. Such a clear prophecy doesn't leave room open for partial days either.

alextemplet wrote:one might say that He chose to do all these things just to fulfill the prophesies

Yes. Assuming he existed, that sounds plausible for part of it, although I mainly attribute it to authors.

alextemplet wrote:He could not, for example, determine where He was born

Nope. But he could lie about it. There were no real "birth records" back then. Also, if he were born in Bethlehem, why isn't he called "Jesus of Bethlehem?"

alextemplet wrote:or many of the details about His early life

We know nothing about his early life...except one claim in one book about him getting lost at 12.

alextemplet wrote:One or two lucky guesses could be explained as coincidence, but this much detail?

Yet, there is no proof outside the Bible that he ever existed or that he was crucified or that any of those claims happened that date to his lifetime or within 40 years of his lifetime.

alextemplet wrote:in fact, there have been many miracles where, during Mass, the bread and wine literally turned into human tissue!

Oh?

alextemplet wrote:And scientific investigation proved it to be the exact same DNA as that on the Shroud of Turin!

Does the scientific community agree upon this? I recall reading that the Shroud of Turin was proven to be a fake by the Vatican.

alextemplet wrote:I know a woman who was on her deathbed, dying of cancer, when prayer alone healed her and she is alive to this day.

Let me introduce you to some seriously ill people claiming the Judeo-Christian God was healing them:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8YThat's first hand testimony revealed to be nothing but self-deceit. Can you provide me with any double-bind, controlled, peer-reviewed reports that suggest prayers cause amputees to be healed?

Matthew and Luke were both written after Mark and date somewhere around the turn of the century. That's 60 years after the (supposed) death of Christ. The two don't match up at all in their birth stories.
Matthew's story is designed to make Jesus look like Moses (Herod's killing of the innocent and fleeing to Egypt). Then you have the idea they lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, and then moved to Nazareth. Matthew has the story with Magi and the angels talking to Joseph, and so on. This story places Jesus born prior to 4BCE.
Luke's story is designed to make Jesus look like King David with the shepherds coming to visit him instead. In addition, Luke has them living in Nazareth. then traveling to Bethlehem. and then simply returning to Nazareth. The angel talks to Mary in this story. This story forces Jesus to have to be born after 6CE (Quirinius). The two can't be equal.

All Bible verses are from the Revised Standard Version, considered by scholars to be the most accurate translation currently available.

evointrigued wrote:Virgin mother is a mistranslation of "young girl." More importantly, this isn't a prophecy of the Messiah. This is predicting a completely different birth. Could you please cite the verses that led you to believe this? Bethlehem is a city. The prophecy is to be part of the family of "Bethlehem."

Virgin means virgin; the concept of virginity was crucially important at that time, as woman could not be married if she was not a virgin. Because of this, when they said virgin, they meant virgin, not merely a "young woman." Here's a few scriptures concerning the virgin birth:

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel.Isaiah 7:14

(18) Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; (19) and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away quietly. (20) But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; (21) she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." (22) All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:(23) "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,and His name shall be called Emmanuel"(which means, God with us). (24) When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, (25) but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called His name Jesus.Matthew 1:18-25

(26) In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, (27) to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the House of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. (28) And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" (29) But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. (30) And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. (31) And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus.(32) He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High;and the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David,(33) and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever;and of His kingdom there will be no end."(34) And Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no husband?" (35) And the angel said to her,"The Holy Spirit will come upon you,and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;therefore the child to be born will be called holy,the Son of God."Luke 1:26-35

As for Christ being born in Bethlehem:

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,who are little to be among the clans of Judah,from you shall come forth for MeOne Who is to be Ruler in Israel,Whose origin is form of old,from ancient days.Micah 5:2

(1) Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judah in the days of Herod the king, behold, Wise Men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, (2) "Where is He Who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East, and have come to worship Him." (3) When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; (4) and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. (5) They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet:(6) 'And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,are by no means least among the rules of Judah;for from you shall come a RulerWho will govern My people Israel.'"(7) Then Herod summoned the Wise Men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star appeared; (8) and he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found Him bring me word, that I too may come and worship Him."Matthew 2:1-8

(4) And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, (5) to be enrolled with Mary his betrothed, who was with child. (6) And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. (7) And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.Luke 2:4-7

Has not the Scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?John 7:42

evointrigued wrote:While we have many documents telling of the horrible things that Herod did, nothing mentions the killing of the first-borns.

Thus says the LORD:"A voice is heard in Ramah,lamentation and bitter weeping.Rachel is weeping for her children;she refuses to be comforted for her children,because they are not."Jeremiah 31:15

(16) Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the Wise Men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the Wise Men. (17) Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:(18) "A voice was heard in Ramah,wailing and loud lamentation,Rachel weeping for her children;she refuses to be consoled,because they were no more."Matthew 2:16-18

evointrigued wrote:Friday evening to Sunday morning is what it predicts and that's 2 days. Such a clear prophecy doesn't leave room open for partial days either.

I made a mistake; the prophecy said that it would be "on the third day"; not "after three days." Counting Friday as the first day, Saturday would be the second and Sunday the third. My mistake

evointrigued wrote:Also, if he were born in Bethlehem, why isn't he called "Jesus of Bethlehem?"

Even though Jesus was born in Bethlehem, He grew up in Nazareth, and was thus called "Jesus of Nazareth." For the same reason, I describe myself as being from Thibodaux, for even though I was not born there, it is where I grew up.

evointrigued wrote:We know nothing about his early life...except one claim in one book about him getting lost at 12.

While we do not know nearly as much as we would like to about Christ's early life, we do know a little bit; some of the verses given above demonstrate that.

evointrigued wrote:Yet, there is no proof outside the Bible that he ever existed or that he was crucified or that any of those claims happened that date to his lifetime or within 40 years of his lifetime.

There are plenty of other sources; in fact, most modern-day scholars accept the Biblical story of Christ's life (including His death and resurrection) as historical fact because of the considerable amount of evidence. For more information on this fascinating topic, go here:

Your YouTube video reminds me of one day when I was at church. There was an old woman sitting in a wheelchair in the back of the church; she prayed for healing, got up, and started walking. No one was supporting her. We all knew her and we all knew she shouldn't be able to walk, and yet there she was walking right in front of our very eyes. I don't deny that there's plenty of frauds out there, but the healing power of miracles is very real. Sadly, such events are poorly documented by most doctors and scientists because they refuse to study it; most scientists are afraid of what they cannot easily explain.

I hope I answered some of your questions; if there's anything else you want to talk about, don't hesitate to ask!

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

Both Mary and Joseph were descended from David. Also, in the eyes of the Jewish authorities, Joseph (as Jesus's step-father) was the only person that mattered; descent and inheritance were always passed through the male line even when the child was adopted.

Also, if God can cause a child to be conceived inside the womb of a virgin, can He not also give that child DNA all of its own instead of being limited to a clone of the mother?

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

Alex says "...can He not also give that child DNA all of its own instead of being limited to a clone of the mother?"

I agree that anything is possible for the Creator, but to a mere mortal like myself, this would appear to be an error in the cloning procedure if I am allowed to compare it with how the Creator had previously written the natural laws of cloning.
_________________

If we would be talking about a purely natural event, you would be right, genovese. However, if we accept (even hypothetically) that something as miraculous as a virgin birth can occur, it is not a great stretch of the imagination to suppose that the composition of the child's DNA could've been another miraculous occurrence and not merely a clone of the mother.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

The problem with all our discussions is about separating fact from fiction or reality from the unreal. You are arguing from a position that the creator exists. I am waiting for you to convince me. It should be very easy for you, if, as I believe, we are genetically programed to believe in the supernatural.

Unfortunately I need to be convinced with the help of reliable data and its logical application.

I canot accept, texts written 2000 and plus years ago as reliable data. Even current news in to-days press has to be carefully interpreted if you wish to understand the facts. You always have to take into account the editor’s bias. The New Testament, written by annonymous authors after the events and then put together some 300 years later by an organisation which was growing in strength and power with a message to sell, does not constitute objective evidence of any sort.

As regards the application of the logic to the above text, we then seem to enter into the world of the “magic of the words”. On the one hand one hears that the texts are sacred and cannot be changed and on the other hand when the text is obviously weird one is told that one must be flexible and use one’s own interpretation.

We then enter into a situation where the printed word itself becomes the evidence. “Thou shall not worship a craven image” (correct me if the text is wrong). It is the TEXT ITSELF that has become “The Craven Image” and everyone is supposed to treat it as though it were the word of the Creator, when in fact the text has been written by many different men at different times. The written word was certainly a tool of power when only a few possessed the knowledge to read and write. The written word is now only as powerful as its author and depends on whether that author is convincing.

The fact that something so unconvincing can be regarded as fact by so many millions is utterly amazing. One could say that it represents the greatest miracle in the whole story.

One crucial detail I would like to add to what you mention, genovese, is that even Greek, Roman, and Jewish sources dating to the time of Christ, all of whom had very good reasons to attempt to destroy Christianity in its early stages, agreed 100% with the Biblical record. I would like to know why Christ's enemies would not have immediately seized upon any inaccuracy or inconsistency in the Gospel story that wasn't true; the only logical answer is that there wasn't any. This is a large part of why most modern-day scholars now accept the amazing details of the Gospels, including the resurrection, as historical facts.

I also mentioned additional evidence beyond that. I would like to know what you think about some of the miracles I described; I honestly don't see how those can be explained away naturally.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.